On 2003-10-05 14:48:56 -0400, Esther Dyson wrote:
>>The ALAC welcomes ICANN's decision to remind Verisign of its
>>obligations TO RUN ITS REGISTRIES FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND
>>NOT AS THE FOUNDATION OF A NEW REVENUE STREAM, [[[[by demanding
>>immediate suspension of its
In fact, they are supposed to run it *both* in the public interest
*and* as a revenue stream. What you suggest here boils down to
asking that Verisign's registry division turns into a
> >"service", and Verisign's compliance with this demand.
> >SiteFinder's suspension was [[[[not only]]] necessary NOT ONLY
> >because it broke
> >hundreds of specific applications, and because it was forced on
> >Internet users around the globe without any advance consultation or
> >notice: SiteFinder ALSO NEEDED [[needs]]] to be stopped because it
> >BROKE [[breaks with]] the
> >end-to-end architecture of the Internet to give one company
> >monopolistic control of a resource in the center. It's not a contest
> >between SiteFinder's search page and MSN's, but between giving
> >VeriSign sole, centralized control of the error-handling for
> >incorrect URLs and distributing that choice among users and
> >applications at the edge of the network. The question is whether
> >users can choose what services fit their needs best, or whether
> >Verisign can take that choice away from users, forcing them to do
> >what's best for Verisign's commercial benefit.
> >Sitefinder [[[not only]]] affects NOT ONLY the web, but ***M***any other
Not *many*, but *all*.
> >running on the net. The question here is whether the network is
> >kept open for new protocols and applications, or whether it's left
> >to Verisign to decide which applications the Internet supports well.
> >Keeping SiteFinder out of the center leaves the greatest flexibility
> >in the network for those who want to innovate by adding new
> >protocols, services, and features AT [[[on]]] the ends.
> >ICANN has called for "further evaluation and study" of the impact of
> >SiteFinder. The proper QUESTION [[[evaluation is]] for VeriSign to
> >CONSIDER IS [[[determine]]]
> >whether it will reimplement its REDIRECTION AND
> >advertiser-supported search as an
> >option at the edge of the network -- where users can elect or
> >decline to use it at their will -- or not at all.
This change does not make sense: What we suggest is that Verisign
is, of course, free to get into the business of providing
advertising-supported search and directoroy services, but that it
should *not* use its position as the .com/.net registry to redirect
unsuspecting users to that service.
Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/